Ameinfo - cynical public relations
active role in the solution of social problems (racial
Bowen - obligation of businessmen to pursue
policies, desirable un terms if objectives & values of
society
Carrol - CSR -> referred to as SR than CSR
 Howard Bowen’s Social Responsibilities of
the Businessmen book marks the modern
period of literature in this subj
 Father of CSR
 no panacea, but contains important truth
that must guide future businessmen
Davis - nebulous idea be seen in managerial
context
 long complicated process of reasoning
 Long-run economic gain, thus paying back
Frederick - businessmen should oversee
operatoon
 prod and distrib enhance total econ welfare
McGuire - not only econ and legal obligations, also
society respon, extend beyond obligations
 must take interest in politic, educ, welfare,
happiness of employees, etc
Davis and Blostrom - person’s oblig to consider
effects of decisions and actions
 consider needs&interest of others, look
beyond firm’s technical interest
Walton- diff models of SR
 intimacy of relationships bet corp & soc
 Must be kept in mind by top managers
Johnson - pursuit of socioecon goals thru
elaboration of social norms
 business takes place w/in socio-cultural
system
Manne & Wallich - three elements of CSR:
1. To qualify as socially respon corp action
2. marginal returns < returns available
3. Purely voluntarily
4. Must be an actual corp expenditure rather
than a conduit
 Prof. Wallich - 3 basic elements of CSR
 Setting of objectives
 Decision whether to pursue them
 Financing of objs
> they must be defensible, but he favored
stockholder instructions
Eilbert & Paret - commitment of business to an
discrimination, pollution, transpo etc)
 found out the type of CSR activities firms
engaged affected org structure and budget,
more impt than other org issues
Ealls & Walton - concern w the needs and goals of
society, beyond the merely economic
 only survive in an effectively functioning free
society if supporting & improving social
order
Backman - objs/motives that should eb given
weight by business
 employment, reduc of pollution, medical
care etc -> improve quality of life
Sethi - dimension of corp social performance
 process to distinguish corp behaviors &
“social obligation, social responsibility, and
social responsiveness”
 SO is proscriptive in nature
 S responsibility is prescriptive
 S responsiveness goes beyond SO
 S responsibility - brings corp behavior up
where it is congruent w social norms etc
Preston & Post - defined SR as “public
responsibility” -> function of org mngmnt w/in
specific context of public life
-> scope of managerial respon isnt unlimited
Fitch - defined CSR in terms of solving social
problems
 serious attempt to solve social probs
caused wholly or in part by corp
 To be socially respon, must identify & define
prob, decide wc to attack 1st, distinction bet
social & nonsocial probs
Carrol - 4 part definition of CSR embedded in a
model of CSP (corp social perf)
 should fulfill economic, legal, ethical,
discretionary responsibility
 In order to engage in CSP they needed to
have:
 Basic def of CSR
 Undrstanding of issues
 Specification of philo of responsiveness
 ECONOMIC RESPONSIBILITY -
expectations society has orgs at a given
point of time
 business intstitution is the basic econ unit of
soc
 LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY - expect
business to obey the law
 law is basic “rule of game”
1
  ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITY - Kinds of
behaviors and ethical norms that soc
expects business 2 follow
 beyond what is required by law
 DISCRETIONARY RESPONSIBILITY -
voluntary roles business assumes, but soc
doesnt provide as clear-cut as an
expectation
 left to manager’s and corp’s judgment ;
driven by social norms
Tuzzolino and Armandi - need-hierarchy
framework patterned after Maslow’s hierarchy of
needs
 accepted Carrol’s def as appropriate for
their purpose
 Helpful to have an ANALYTICAL framework
 Their hierarchy didnt redefine CSR,
suggested orgs have CRITERIA that
needed to be met
 Orgs have physiological, safety, affiliate,
esteem etc needs
 Hierarchy as “conceptual tool whereby
socially respon org perf could be assessed
Strand - system paradigm of org adaptations to
social envi
 offered no new def of CSR, his model is
notable bc stream of efforts to associate
concepts
Carrol - CSR involves conduct of business so that
it’s economically profitable, law abiding...
 to be socially responsible, profitability &
obedience to law are foremost conditions
 CSR is composed of businesses in ethical
sense, but increasingly strategic
Jones - CSR as notion thats corps have an oblig to
constituent grps in soc other than stockholders
 two facets of def are critical:
 Oblig must be voluntarily adopted
 behav. influenced by coercive forces is NOT
voluntary
 Oblig is broad, extending beyond traditiona
duty
 FOUR PARTS:
 Legal
 Ethical
 Voluntary
 Philanthropic
Peter Drucker - explicit in a number and implicit in
others
 Not simply compatibility of profitability &
respon but idea that business ought to
“convert” social responsibilities into
OPPORTUNITIES
 “tame the dragon” -> turn problem into econ
opportunity
THREE RESPONSIBILITIES OF MNGMNT:
1. Make profit
2. Satisfy employees
3. Be socially responsible
4. will weaken soc if failed to carry out
5. very vigilant civil soc that can maintain
balance
 Comeback of the neo-classical economic
philisophies - vigilant civilian actions
 private global enterprises taking over less
efficient enterprises thru buy-outs, joint
venture etc
Wartick & Cochran - “evolution of corp social perf
model” wc extended 3-dimensional integ of
responsibility, responsiveness, & social issues
 recasted Carrol’s aspects into a framework
of PRINCIPLES, PROCESSES &
POLICIES
Epstein - quest to relate social responsibility,
responsiveness, & business ethics
 closely related, overlapping
 CSR as primarily to achieving outcomes
from org decisions
 Have beneficial effects rather adverse on
stakeholders
 Normative correctness -> main focus of
corp social responsibility
 Soc responsiveness & business ethics ->
SOCIAL POLICY PROCESS (SPP)
 Nub of corp SPP is institutionalization w/in
business orgs
Wood - reformulated Carrol’s 3D CSR model &
Wartick&Cochran’s formulation
 formulated three principles:
 Carrols
4domain(econ,legal,ethical,discretio) into
social legitimacy(institutio), public
respon(org), managerial discrestion(indiv)
 Processes of Corp soc responsiveness into
Environmental assessment, stakeholder
mngmnt, issues mngmnt
 W&C’s policies from C’s “social issues” into
new topic of concern, OUTCOMES OF
CORP BEHAVIOR
 placed CSR into broader context
 Emphasis
on outcomes/performance (more explicit)
Carrol (1991) - discretionary as PHILANTHROPIC
-> embrace corp citizenship
 4 KINDS OF SOC RESPONSIBILITIES
 Econ
 Legal
 Ethical
 Philanthropic
 depicted as pyramid
2
  “CSR firm should strive to make profit, obey
law, be ethical, and be a good corp citizen”
Brummer - explaine theories of Corp Social
Responsibility
1. Classical theory- goal to secure fin. goals
2. Stakeholders - corp execs responsible to
shareholders
3. Social Demandingness - goal to protect
interests of gen public
4. Social Activist - univ standards to corp
conduct that is independent of stockholders
interests
5. importance of long-term existence
6. Need to comply to standards
Iñigo - social respon is moral & ethical content of
managerial & corp decisions
 above pragmatic reqs
Pauli - explained main CSR theories & related
approaches in 4grps:
1. Instrumental theories - corp as instrument
for wealth creation
2. Political theory - concerns w power of corps
3. Integrative theory - satisfaction of soc
demands
4. Ethical theory - based on ethical
responsibilities of corps
Wheelen - diff bet ethical & discretionary
responsibilities
Bateman - traditional view of social respon
 “Business of business is business”
 Friedman - respon of business to produce
goods that ARENT contrary to public policy,
free from fraud
 Any cost attributed to CSR is contrary to
sound business practice
 Modern theorist view soc respon as
INVESTMENT rather than expense
 Business should consider Social
Implications of their decisions
 Social responsiveness is ability of corp to
relate ops to soc environ that are mutually
beneficial to them
Dow Jones Sustainability Index cited by Holcomb
> defined Corp Sustainability as a business
approach that creates longterm shareholder
value
Schrader - traditional sharing of tasks bet public &
private sector —> new forms of cooperation
MAIN TRENDS RESPONSIBLE FOR SHIFT OF
PARADIGMS:
1. Importance of govt is diminishing - countries
lose a significant part of capability to shape
social agenda
2. Importance of companies - increased
profits, financial backbone to assume
respon in globalized world -> inc capability
Carrol (2006) - four parts of soc respon:
1. Economic aspect
2. Legal aspect
3. Ethical respon
4. Discretionary
5. listed 4 respon accdg to priority
6. Discretio respon of today may become the
ethical respon of tomorrow
7. Social respon includes ethical & discretio
BUT not econ and legal respon
Branco & Rodrigues - described the stakeholder
perspective(SP) of CSR —> inclusion of all grps
 normative model - CSR collabs are
positively accepted, no effect to the org if
not directly related to stakeholders interests
 SP doesnt acknowledge the complexity of
network interactions
 Soc Responsibility - concerned w low indivs
& orgs deal w current soc issues
Carrol (2009) - CSR as obligation of decision
makers to take actions
wc protect&improve welfare
 suggests 2 active aspects of soc respon^
 Protect -> avoidance of (-) impacts
 Improve -> creation of (+) benefits
 Community based develpment projects
 Proactive/affirmative approach to soc
respon is most difficult,complex, expensive
concept
FIVE CATEGORIES OF OBLIGATION:
1. Broad performance criteria - for measuring
orgs perf & soc role
2. Ethical norms - def stand on public issues
3. Operating strategy - maintain/improve
standards of phys&soc environment
4. Response to Social pressures - willing to
discuss acts w outside grps
5. Legislative&political activities - willingness
to work w outside stakeholders; promote
honesty and openness in govt
Sibal & Atienza - elements of CSR
1. Respon beyond prod of goods
2. Solve soc problems
3. Broader constituency than SH alone
4. Impact
5. Wider range of human values
6. public image can make/unmake corps
7. Capital &other phys assets (land&bldgs) are
no longer premium factors of production
BUT people w skills and knowledge
8. corps -integral part of soc; subsystems of
soc
3
 9. Corps feel the inadequacy of traditional
classical econ philosophies
10. Basic idea of CSR -> business & soc
are interwoven: PRINCIPLES
11. Principle of Legitimacy
12. Principle of Public Responsibility
13. Principle of Managerial Discretion
(dependent on avaialble opportunities,
choices, resources)
“The business of business” accdg to Juan Luz &
Teodoro Montelibano - developing people not
only w/in compnay but also in community
 Social political contributions such as
decreasing pollution, reducing
unemployment, improving leace & order
Sibal & Atienza - practice of CSR is a must for all
orgs
MAJOR ACTORS OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
SYSTEM:
1. Leaders
2. Management/admin
3. Govt officials - planner enforcer & equalizer
 to be socially respon, efficient & competitive
 other actors: orgs w/in academe, media,
church -> put pressure on both govt officials
& corp managers
RELATED STUDIES:
 New direction is relating CSR
to profitability
Bowman & Haire - study to ascertain the extent to
wc companies were engaging in CSR
 operationalize
 Measure proportion of lines
 Not providing formal def of CSR,illustrated
kinds of topics representing CSR
-> subheads to sections of annual report
 good idea of what CSR meant
Holmes - study to gather “executive perception of
CSR”
 no clear def of CSR
 set of statements abt CSR
 Felt during that time period
 Identify “outcomes” and “factors”
Abbot & Monsen - CSR’s meaning in research
study
 annual reports of Fortune 500 companies
 Social involvement disclosure (SID) scale ->
measure firm’s CSR
 Big 8 acctg firm Ernst and Ernst -produced
annual unpublished summary
 Not designed to define CSR but to get ideas
abt measuring CSR
Cochran & Wood - empirical study on CSR
 whether social responsible firms are also
profitable firms
 Used “reputation” index as measure of CSR
developed by Milton Moskowitz
 either “outstanding, honorable mention,
worst”
 Admitted weakness of this measure and
called for new measures
Aupperle, Carrol, Hatfield - empirical study on
relations between CSR and profitability
 used definitional construct of CSR
 Priorities of 4 components
 Econ
 Legal
 Ethical
 Discretionary
 econ- concern for economic perf
 Legal,ethical,discretio- concern for society
 not every1 sees econ respon as part of
SocRespon
 Social orientation - assessed thru
importance it places on 3 non-econ
components
Carrol - surveyed 50leaders in soc issues
 helped position CSR definitional literature in
total scheme of things

Brown & Dacin -CSR associations
have significant influence on consumer
responses to new products
 Negative CSR assoc. -> detrimental effx
 Positive -> enhance product evals.
Apostol - cited benefits of CSR:
1. Enhanced brand & co. reputation
2. Improved soc. & environ. Risk mngmnt
3. Improved employee relations
4. Better SH relations
5. Improved community relations
6. Proactive change mngmnt strategies
7. Improved financial perf
 Apostol, Brown & Dacin, Carroll, Holmes -
similar studies